From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun  3 16:04:02 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B9D8137B401; Tue,  3 Jun 2003 16:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BE7BD43F85; Tue,  3 Jun 2003 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h53N3qnA027697;
	Wed, 4 Jun 2003 01:03:52 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "02 Jun 2003 22:54:01 BST."
             <1054590840.1641.12.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com> 
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 01:03:52 +0200
Message-ID: <27696.1054681432@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
cc: dfr@freebsd.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: VFS: C99 sparse format for struct vfsops 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:04:03 -0000

In message <1054590840.1641.12.camel@cf.freebsd-services.com>, Paul Richards wr
ites:
>On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 22:36, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>> I thought the point in KOBJ was that it was extensible so you could
>> KLD load stuff which added more methods ?
>
>Not exactly. It allows for dynamic binding of methods that implement a
>specified interface. It gives you 2 things mainly:
>
>The possible methods available in an interface are fixed, they're
>defined in the .m files.

Then I don't see the justification for the hashing & caching when it
can be resolved at compile time...

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.